Scrambling question

@barnee said in Bridging question:

Panther probably give you a detailed answer

Only the relevant part from the rulebook (Europe 1940.2 page 21) ;-)

Transporting Multinational Forces: Transports
belonging to a friendly power can load and offload
your land units, as long as both powers are at war.

This is a three-step process:

You load your land units aboard the friendly
transport on your turn. The transport’s owner moves it (or not) on
that owner’s turn. You offload your land units on your next turn.

Why not ask if you need a transport to cross the Tasman sea. Heck, people can swim the English Channel so therefore no transport should be required, right?

Fair dinkum. This has got to be one of the weirdest A&A questions I’ve heard.

@Duke:

Most definitely! And I understand that now, I mean it should litterally be descriped as a faze between the declaring combat moves faze and the conduct combat faze

Fully. Declaring intercept, scramble and kamikaze decisions should be their own phase to provide clarity in the rules. Not for any other reason. Actually resolving those things can still be in conduct combat.

Its a pretty straight forward setup:

Attacker declares ALL combat moves and then you request defender to decide on Scrambles/Intercepts.  This indicates you have concluded all your combat moves for the turn.

At this point, the Attacker has passed the point of no return and is stuck with all the decisions just made.

You’ll get a lot of mileage out of requiring the attacker to request scramble decisions with the understanding it indicates they have concluded all their combat moves.

In the case where there are no scrambles, just require the attacker to announce something along the lines of, “That ends my combat move phase.”

Generally it is VERY important when playing in person to make sure you announce the transition of the phases and don’t muddle up combat and non-combat moves.  Not saying people all cheat, but it sucks when you lose track of unit movement and end up double moving something that impacts the game dramatically (like moving a bomber to Hawaii in your combat move phase and then non-combat moving it in the same round to one of the smaller islands and now being in striking distance of unprotected Japanese TT which should have been safe but now are not).

Agree with techroll

Note that for #3, if the UK does not declare war on Japan the battleship could stay in the zone (would not be hostile), but if Japan has declared war on the US, there is almost no reason for the UK not to declare war on Japan…  So in 99% of cases I suppose the UK BB would need to move (if UK declared war on Japan since Japan DOW on USA)…

@Zallomallo:

@Zcion:

Quick clarification:

in before mentioned case, UK income 8+5 from NO, 4 ger subs in sz109 and 1 in sz119.
would uk loose 8 or 10 ipc due to convoy disruption?

afaik you cant convoy disrup NO?

many thx
Zcion

Correct, disruption is capped by the surrounding territories’ income.

Well, it’s capped by the total value of each convoy zone’s adjacent spaces, which can technically exceed income collected from those territories.  But you’re correct in that disruption does not affect National Objectives or at least does not affect the 40 on West US.

However, I’m not certain of the timing of convoy vs objectives and whether convoy disruption affects total income after objectives are collected.  Convoys can only affect values of territories, but since they can exceed income you’d collect from territories (by the double dips similar to 109/119), I don’t know whether than can dig a little into objectives.  Based on the Pac40 west US errata, it would seem no but this is not specifically addressed by the errata, which clarified that WUS was not worth 40, it was only worth 10, and could only be blocked up to 10.

So, as long as britain is making an additional 2 ipcs income through other territories, if sz109 and sz119 are fully blocked, Britain will lose 10 ipcs (8 for 109 and 2 for 119).  If Britain is making less than 10 IPCs in income before national objectives, they collect 0 for those their territorial income, and then collect national objective ipcs.

However, it’s VERY rare indeed that the UK does not still collect from an african or canadian territory that would put its territorial income over 10, in which case, if sc109 and 119 are fully blocked, they lose 10 IPCS.

As I suspected….damn. Thank you sir.

@cressman8064:

@Get:

can they build a Minor IC then upgrade it to a Major IC, since the rules do not state anything about upgrading it to a Major IC.

Upgrading a minor to major on foreign soil still counts as building a major, so with the new rules Korea is the only location Japan can build a major anywhere in the world.

Or Japan, assuming it falls and is retaken.